REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
(4)
28 August 2026
DATE
Case No. 121275 / 2023
In the matter between:
PROE SHABANGU N.O First Appl icant
STEMBILE ALFONSINA SHABANGU N.O Second Applicant
NOMSAMU PERSEVERENCE MAHLANGU N.O Third Applicant
and
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN Respondent
REVENUE SERVICES
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on scale C.
JUDGMENT
TOLMAY J:
[1] The Roux Shabangu Family trust ("the Trust") seeks leave to appeal against
the judgment and order finally sequestrating the Trust. The application is primarily
based on the Trust's payment of its debt to SARS. The trust submits that payment of
the debt meant that SARS no longer had a qualifying claim, from which it follows that
the requirements of section12(1 )(a) of the Insolvency Act1, had not been met.
[2] Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act2 requires a two-stage enquiry when
considering leave to appeal first, the court must decide whether there are reasonable
prospects that another court, considering the same facts, would reach a different
conclusion. If so, leave to appeal should be granted. If not, the court must consider
whether any compelling reason exists for the appeal to be heard.
[3] The judgment explains the basis for the order and the Court's exercise of its
discretion in granting a final sequestration, despite the payment. The reasons
advanced in the judgment need not be repeated. The application is aimed mainly at
the Court's assessment of the facts, the inferences drawn, and the exercise of its
discretion.
[4] The Trust's argument is inter alia based on the mistaken assumption that the
final hearing took place on 1 December 2025. The matter was heard on 22 and 23
July 2025, after which the parties filed further affidavits. On 12 August 2025, the Court
was informed that the Trust had paid its debt to SARS. Additional affidavits followed,
as dealt with in the judgment. The Court later convened a case-management meeting
to ensure the finalisation of the matter. It is therefore incorrect to contend that the final
1 24 of 1936
2 10 of 2013
hearing occurred on 1 December 2025. The chronology is addressed fully in the
judgment.
[5] The underlying facts are both material and decisive. The Trust had committed
acts of insolvency under sections 8(e) and 8(f) of the Insolvency Act. Payment was
made only after the provisional sequestration and the final hearing of the application.
The source and legal character of that payment remained unresolved and was
challenged by SARS. The facts also revealed potentially impeachable transactions.
and the Court found that an investigation could reasonably yield a pecuniary benefit.
[6] I was referred, among other authorities, to Scania Finance Southern Africa (Pty)
Ltd v Mathafeng Investment Holdings (Pty) LtcP. That case is distinguishable from the
present matter. In this matter and as recorded in the judgment SARS traced funds
through several accounts and entities, identified inaccurate information, and
uncovered a transaction that may be open to challenge. During those investigations,
the alleged borrower changed from Mr Shabangu to the Trust, although both were
under provisional sequestration, and no adequate explanation for the origin of the
funds was provided.
[7] The Court applied the principles governing the granting of a final sequestration
order, and the exercise of its discretion, in the context of the facts of this case. There
is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor is
there any compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.
[81 The following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on scale C.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
3 2026 JDR 1862 (GP)
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
This judgment was prepared and authored by the judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives
by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines . The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 28 August 2026.
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant
Instructed by
For the Respondent
Instructed by
Matter heard on
Judgment date
Adv R Mastenbroek
Mayet Attorneys Inc.
Adv MP Van Der Merwe SC with Adv CAA Lewaak
MacRobert Inc Attorneys
20 August 2026
28 August 2026